Appeal 3353551

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a wrap-around extension and loft conversion to existing terraced house at [site address] , Walthamstow, [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 241322, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision;

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the original building.

Prior to the commencement of development on site, details of the cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cycle storage shall thereafter be retained as approved.

Prior to the commencement of development on site, details of the external wall insulation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external wall insulation shall thereafter be retained as approved.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to outlook and daylight/sunlight.

The appeal property comprises a two-storey terraced dwelling with an original two storey rear outrigger. It is set back from the road behind a low wall and a small front garden area and has a garden to the rear.

The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two storey terraced houses. Like the appeal property, dwellings tend to be set back from the road behind low walls and small gardens and have longer gardens to the rear.

During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended. In particular, the area to the rear of the appeal dwelling is notable for the quantity and wide variety of extensions and alterations visible. During my site visit, I observed that dwellings along [address] have been extended to the rear in a significant range of different ways at ground floor, first floor and roof level.

Extensions of all shapes and sizes are thus characteristic of the rear of [address]. These include numerous L-shaped dormers. Thus, whilst the proposed L-shaped dormer would not be set back from the rear building line, it would appear little different to and in keeping with, the appearance of the existing rear dormer at Number [address]. Further, I find that the proposed palette of materials would result in the dormer integrating well with the host dwelling and would avoid any sense of visual dominance or top-heaviness.

Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed dormer would appear as an appropriate, subordinate addition, in keeping with the host dwelling and its surroundings.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and that it would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to Policy 53 of the Local Plan1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The proposed wrap-around extension would stretch across the full width of the property. Whilst this would result in the proposal projecting well beyond the rear of Number [address], adjacent to the shared rear boundary with that dwelling, I observed during my site visit that No 54’s nearest rear-facing ground floor window is obscure glazed. This and the single storey height of the proposed extension would mean that little, if any, harm would arise to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property as a result of the proposed development, in respect of outlook, daylight and sunlight.

The proposed wrap-around extension would also project along the shared rear boundary with Number [address]. This would result in the extension being seen in close proximity from No 58’s rear facing ground floor living room window, as well as from a large kitchen window. 1 [site address] Local Plan Part 1 (2024).

However, during my site visit, I noted that due to the topography of the area, No 58 sits considerably higher than the appeal dwelling. This factor, when combined with the single storey height and flat roof of the proposed wrap-around extension would ensure that no significant harm would arise in respect of the proposal’s effect on the outlook from No 58, nor its effect on the amount of sunlight and daylight received by No 58.

Taking this into account, I find that the design and siting of the proposed extension would be such that the occupiers of No 58 would retain an acceptable outlook and would receive adequate amounts of sunlight and daylight.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings in respect of outlook and daylight/sunlight and that it would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to Policy 57 of the Local Plan, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

I have considered the conditions against the tests set out in Paragraph 56 of the Framework. I find that a condition specifying materials is necessary in the interests of local character.

A condition in respect of cycle storage is necessary in the interests of sustainable patterns of movement. A condition in respect of external wall insulation is necessary in the interests of energy efficiency.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is successful.